Lanigan v. City of Los Angeles, 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 156

Lanigan faced disciplinary charges with LAPD; BOR recommended termination, but a settlement reduced penalty to a 22‑day suspension and required certain future misconduct to trigger resignation, with waivers of POBRA rights.
Settlement Terms: Lanigan agreed to resign if future acts of harassment toward outside agency officers or failure to cooperate were sustained, and he waived several POBRA rights; he acknowledged anticipated disciplinary penalties would be recorded.
Lanigan also released City from all claims, sought no administrative or legal remedies, and acknowledged counsel reviewed terms with a 21‑day consideration period and 7‑day revocation window.
Lanigan signed the Agreement on February 18, 2008; DSU and LAPD officers participated in negotiations, with no coercion alleged by the record.
A second disciplinary count arose in 2009 after Lanigan sought treatment at a hospital; misconduct charges were sustained, and Lanigan was ultimately removed from employment.
Lanigan petitioned for a peremptory writ of mandate in December 2009, arguing the waiver of POBRA rights and the settlement were unenforceable; the trial court voided the settlement under Farahani, and the City appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the waiver of POBRA rights is permissible in a settlement	Lanigan (plaintiff) argues waiving POBRA rights in a settlement is prohibited.	City (defendant) contends waiver is permitted under Madrigal and related authorities in settlement contexts.	Waiver of POBRA protections in a settlement is permissible in this context.
Whether the release of all claims is enforceable	Lanigan contends the release may be invalid if tainted by lack of consent or coercion.	City asserts the release is valid as part of a voluntary settlement not procured by fraud or duress.	The release is enforceable as part of a valid settlement.
Whether the agreement is unconscionable	Lanigan claims procedural and substantive unconscionability due to unequal bargaining power and discretion given to the chief.	City contends bargaining was equal and terms were clearly disclosed; no undue coercion existed.	The agreement is not unconscionable.
Whether the petition for writ of mandate was properly brought and reviewable	Lanigan seeks mandamus to reinstate or set aside the settlement, arguing for review of POBRA rights.	City argues administrative mandamus is proper to review final agency decisions and the settlement should be enforced.	The petition is properly reviewable under administrative mandamus and the court may evaluate the settlement.

Madrigal v. City of Riverside, 27 Cal.4th 793 (Cal. 2002) (limits on waivers of POBRA rights; context for post-employment waivers)
Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist., 175 Cal.App.4th 1486 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (predisciplinary waivers of Education Code rights barred)
Alhambra Police Officers Assn. v. City of Alhambra Police Dept., 113 Cal.App.4th 1413 (Cal. App. 4th 2003) (settlement waivers of disciplinary rights; enforceability where no fraud/duress)
Zazueta v. County of San Benito, 38 Cal.App.4th 106 (Cal. App. 4th 1995) (waivers chosen in arbitration may foreclose later reviewing petitions)
Stermer v. Board of Dental Examiners, 95 Cal.App.4th 128 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (settlement of disciplinary proceedings and consequences)
Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005) (procedural unconscionability and adhesion contracts framework)
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (unconscionability both procedural and substantive; sliding scale)
Crupi v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal.App.3d 1111 (Cal. App. 3d 1990) (POBRA rights as minimum standards; public purpose)
Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971) (administrative mandamus framework and standard of review)
Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2008) (POBRA rights; BOR procedures and administrative review)